This is a pretty easy fix, so how about we don't do anything to encourage the decline to stop. Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans. The world's population is too high given our current rates of resource usage.

The problem with this analysis, however, is that the author is making the same mistake he accuses Malthus of making: namely, making straight-line projections hundreds of years into the future regarding population growth. At least the suggestion that human population could go to zero. That part was pretty unbelievable.

GAT_00:Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.

Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.

Are we going to have a dystopian future as depicted in Logan's Run where you surrender your life at some fixed point, say 250 years? Do we add a plutocracy twist where the rich can essentially live forever by purchasing life credits as depicted in In Time? Maybe wars regarding finite resources will lead to periodic cullings that keep the population in check. Regardless, it will mean huge changes (or lack of change) in culture and work.

Dinjiin:GAT_00: Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans.

Figuring out how to extend lifespans to 150+ years or more while keeping our bodies young is going to be one of those paradigm shifts in society that nobody living today is going to accurately be able to predict.

Are we going to have a dystopian future as depicted in Logan's Run where you surrender your life at some fixed point, say 250 years? Do we add a plutocracy twist where the rich can essentially live forever by purchasing life credits as depicted in In Time? Maybe wars regarding finite resources will lead to periodic cullings that keep the population in check. Regardless, it will mean huge changes (or lack of change) in culture and work.

We've never had a population explosion. We had a death implosion. Lifespans have increased from 50 years in the early 1900s to 78 or higher at the end of that century. We didn't have more babies than previous generations. We just didn't die as quickly as previous generations.

And with the draconian birth control methods of China, we will see a government inducement for citizens of other countries to set up shop in China in about 20 years. That 1.6 billion people will drop precipitously in the next 20 years. It will be smaller than India's population in about 30 years.

You realize, if productivity goes up, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, so the population can shrink for quite some time without adversely affecting anyone's quality of life. Also, with fewer people chasing after the same resources, prices will go down.

dericwater:That 1.6 billion people will drop precipitously in the next 20 years. It will be smaller than India's population in about 30 years.

They'd better hope so, in order to keep their environment halfway stable. Thing is, they're gonna be in for a wild ride when the 100 million surplus boys become bachelors. If there's not a bloody revolution in China in 20 years I'll be very surprised.

theorellior:You realize, if productivity goes up, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, so the population can shrink for quite some time without adversely affecting anyone's quality of life. Also, with fewer people chasing after the same resources, prices will go down.

You see a lot of Eastern Bloc immigrants moving to the west. There is also some legal migration from former African and Caribbean colonies. They also have illegal immigration issues with people from North Africa and the Middle East crossing into Greece, Italy and Spain. But the last I read, the former was the biggest movement of people, not the latter two.

I would bet that we'll have a worldwide pandemic of something seriously antibiotic resistant within 20 years or so. It'll knock off around 1-2 billion of the world's population, mostly clustered in the areas like Mumbai, or Bayonne, or anywhere else they routinely chuck corpses into the river to dispose of 'em. Panic and social disorder will account for a few tens of millions of those deaths.That should relieve population pressures for a while. Of course, it will be used as a vehicle to enact stupid, evil, or religiously-based laws. But I repeat myself. Anyway, it will entirely be the fault of Westerners insistence on a cheap-all-meat diet, combined with helicoptery parents who demand an antibiotic every time their child gets a sniffle or an owie. Oh, and the lawyers. Yes, it'll be their fault, too. Hopefully the bacteria will be selectively lethal towards members of bar associations. One can dream.

What were we talking about again? Schtupping? Good Lord, I hope when the pandemic comes, it isn't an STD. Countries be bannin' sex if that happens.

dericwater:We've never had a population explosion. We had a death implosion. Lifespans have increased from 50 years in the early 1900s to 78 or higher at the end of that century. We didn't have more babies than previous generations. We just didn't die as quickly as previous generations.

And with the draconian birth control methods of China, we will see a government inducement for citizens of other countries to set up shop in China in about 20 years. That 1.6 billion people will drop precipitously in the next 20 years. It will be smaller than India's population in about 30 years.

I don't think you understand how geometric progressions work. Yeah, modern medicine increased survival rates, but of CHILDREN. Life expectancy didn't go up so much because adults live longer; it went up because children don't die like flies any more. And regardless, when you start with 2 billion people, it's really easy to get to 7 billion.

Indubitably:LewDux: Indubitably: Indubitably: LewDux: As you may not be surprised to learn, the Germans have coined a polysyllabic word for this quandary: Schrumpf-Gessellschaft, or "shrinking society."

SHRINCIETY!!

I think you need the "k."

"SHRINKCIETY!!"

Yes, much better; you're welcome.

P.S. Especially in America.

Than you

Good luck with that.

P.P.S. I've heard and read many people ascribe/ascribble a sense of superiority to my posts, as though I think I am better than you. You misread me. I am my own worst critic, and I can stand only briefly, at times. But never here. I am much better in person. Here, you ascribe. There, you read. Word. *)

theorellior:You realize, if productivity goes up, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, so the population can shrink for quite some time without adversely affecting anyone's quality of life. Also, with fewer people chasing after the same resources, prices will go down.

But we need people as consumers to buy the stuff we make. We now have many more opportunities for people to do things. We don't need 100s of people to make a widget, true, but we have 1000s of different widget like products to make or could make. Each may only require 10s of people to operate. On the whole, we need more people, not less.

GAT_00:This is a pretty easy fix, so how about we don't do anything to encourage the decline to stop. Besides, who knows what kind of technology is around the corner that could extend lifespans. The world's population is too high given our current rates of resource usage.

Our current rate of resource usage may be the reason the birth rates are declining. Lower birth rates are directly related to increases in wealth. Increases in wealth are directly related to industrialization/energy usage. Kind of counter-intuitive, but continuing to use energy to move the world's population from agrarian to industrial, may be the only way to eventually lower resource usage.

/not an argument against using resources intelligently and efficiently

theorellior:You realize, if productivity goes up, fewer people are needed to do the same amount of work, so the population can shrink for quite some time without adversely affecting anyone's quality of life. Also, with fewer people chasing after the same resources, prices will go down.

Yup. And it's not the total number of humans that are stressing the planet's resources, it's the few hundred million wealthy ones consuming the vast majority of resources. If every human consumed like the average American, well, it just wouldn't be possible, but if they did there'd be massive ecological destruction. But good luck asking Americans to do with less, since our definition of wealth is tied closely with the amount you consume. And good luck asking the Chinese or Indians to do without, as they become wealthy and want to live like the rest of the modern world.

theorellior:dericwater: That 1.6 billion people will drop precipitously in the next 20 years. It will be smaller than India's population in about 30 years.

They'd better hope so, in order to keep their environment halfway stable. Thing is, they're gonna be in for a wild ride when the 100 million surplus boys become bachelors. If there's not a bloody revolution in China in 20 years I'll be very surprised.

Those boys being permanent bachelors have already happened 10 years or longer ago. Remember, it was Mao's 1 child per family policy of the 60s and 70s. The first group of them are now in the 40s and 50s. I expect to see China changing its family planning policy in the next 10 years.

dahmers love zombie:I would bet that we'll have a worldwide pandemic of something seriously antibiotic resistant within 20 years or so. It'll knock off around 1-2 billion of the world's population, mostly clustered in the areas like Mumbai, or Bayonne, or anywhere else they routinely chuck corpses into the river to dispose of 'em. Panic and social disorder will account for a few tens of millions of those deaths.That should relieve population pressures for a while. Of course, it will be used as a vehicle to enact stupid, evil, or religiously-based laws. But I repeat myself. Anyway, it will entirely be the fault of Westerners insistence on a cheap-all-meat diet, combined with helicoptery parents who demand an antibiotic every time their child gets a sniffle or an owie. Oh, and the lawyers. Yes, it'll be their fault, too. Hopefully the bacteria will be selectively lethal towards members of bar associations. One can dream.

What were we talking about again? Schtupping? Good Lord, I hope when the pandemic comes, it isn't an STD. Countries be bannin' sex if that happens.

While it seems alarmist, I think a total civilizational collapse is more likely than a minor drop in population. Once the population starts to fall, you get in a negative feedback loop -- fewer people equals less technology, plus environmental degradation equals less easily arable land and fertile fishing grounds equals fewer people, etc.

See "Collapse" by Jared Diamond for any number of historical precedents.

I don't think we'd ever come back, either. All the low-hanging resource fruit is gone. It's gonna be hunting and gathering for you, homo sapiens, until the star goes dim.